Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

ozmanjusri writes "While Microsoft presented its recent embrace of the GPL as 'a break from the ordinary,' and the press spoke of them as going to great lengths to engage the open source community,' as is often the case with Microsoft, it turns out they had an ulterior motive. According to Stephen Hemminger, an engineer with Vyatta, Microsoft's Hyper-V used open-source components in a network driver and the company released the code to avoid legal action over a GPL violation. Microsoft's decision to embrace the GPL was welcomed by many in the open source community, but their failure to honestly explain the reason behind the release will have squandered this opportunity to build trust, something which is sadly lacking in most people's dealings with Microsoft."

What's hilarious is how many times I've been called a "tin-foil hatter" because I openly expected ulterior motives and other treachery from this company. There is nothing paranoid or cynical about actually having a working knowledge of the history of the entity in question. It's so simple, too:

Microsoft has interests which can be described as "selfish", in the sense that realizing those interests serves them and not you. Not unless you are employed by them or own stock in the company, anyway. Most successful corporations can be described this way; they are not your pal or your buddy. Microsoft is just notable because they are so dominant in their industry.

Microsoft is in this for the long haul. They use long-term strategy extensively, which is part of how they got to where they are today. I'll bold this one because it's important: the best long-term strategy is indistinguishable from "random" events that happen to "go your way." I think the failure to understand this about Microsoft is similar to the failure to understand this about government. Neither takes any deliberate action, however benign or however evil, unless it fits into this strategy of gaining money, control, PR, or all of the above. Ever. If Microsoft donates a million dollars to save the whales, you can bet it's because they ran the numbers and expect that the good PR will make them at least a million and one dollars back. They make mistakes, like this near-violation of the GPL, but as you see they try to turn those into good PR.

Some of the FOSS community needs to get over the fantasy that Microsoft is ever going to be an ally. Yes, it would be nice. Yes, it would probably improve both Windows and Open Source platforms. However, for that to happen Microsoft would have to be fully open and transparent, maybe not on the business side but definitely for technological matters. They would have to use nothing but fully open standards, with fully open reference implementations in widely available source code. They'd have to give up "embrace-and-extend" and a whole host of other strategies that got them where they are today. They are not voluntarily going to do that, for the same reason that politicians don't like to reduce the size and power of government.

Microsoft's decision to embrace the GPL was welcomed by many in the open source community, but their failure to honestly explain the reason behind the release will have squandered this opportunity to build trust, something which is sadly lacking in most people's dealings with Microsoft."

How many times does this have to happen before we can save everyone some time and just skip the fantasy that there was ever an opportunity to build trust? Or, do people have some inability to know who and what they are dealing with? To have a corporation act like it wants to be your friend in order to further its own interests is merely a nuisance. When people start to really believe that it's their friend though, that is something much worse. That is actually how an "opponent" which cannot be bought out could eventually (long-term) be taken down or rendered irrelevant. To Microsoft, FOSS is such an opponent.

What's hilarious is how many times I've been called a "tin-foil hatter" because I openly expected ulterior motives and other treachery from this company.

I guess I'm not seeing this "treachery" of which you're going on about. Microsoft made use of GPL code, like hundreds of other companies before them, and in keeping with the law and the license, also released their code under the GPL. This really is a big move for them, the company that previously wouldn't want to be caught dead with their hand in the GPL cookie jar. Here they are not only using the code but releasing it back out for public use and scrutiny.

Nobody cares that Linksys/Cisco uses GPL code in their cheap routers. Nobody cares that Google uses GPL code in their various web apps. Nobody cares that FOSS-heavy companies like Novell and Red Hat use GPL code to make a profit. Why should any care that Microsoft is using GPL code as long as they are following the terms of the license?

So what if their marketing and PR machine didn't outright say "We used GPL code and so we're releasing this under the GPL"? The code is right there in the open. Slashdotters always bemoan that closed source is terrible because it's all secret and hidden with bugs and evil embedded where nobody can see. MS dumped the 20,000 lines of code into the open where everyone can go read it. There's not much headway to be made via treachery and subterfuge when anybody can just read the code.

Your three little bullet points describe every publicly-owned company on the planet. A corporation, by definition, has obligations to itself (the shareholders) that it is expected to meet. There's no such thing as an altruistic for-profit corporation. Sure, some embrace F/OSS more than others but that's usually just due to their respective market overlap. Google doesn't sell an OS so they're okay using and helping Linux. They do have a browser so you can expect Firefox support to dwindle. They do have an office suite so you won't expect them to support Open Office. This is normal and to be expected. The same thing goes for Microsoft.

What's hilarious is how many times I've been called a "tin-foil hatter" because I openly expected ulterior motives and other treachery from this company.

I guess I'm not seeing this "treachery" of which you're going on about. Microsoft made use of GPL code, like hundreds of other companies before them, and in keeping with the law and the license, also released their code under the GPL. This really is a big move for them, the company that previously wouldn't want to be caught dead with their hand in the GPL cookie jar. Here they are not only using the code but releasing it back out for public use and scrutiny.

Nobody cares that Linksys/Cisco uses GPL code in their cheap routers. Nobody cares that Google uses GPL code in their various web apps. Nobody cares that FOSS-heavy companies like Novell and Red Hat use GPL code to make a profit. Why should any care that Microsoft is using GPL code as long as they are following the terms of the license?

I don't know about "treachery" but I do see distinct differences between Microsoft and some of the other companies you've listed. This is all about history.

First and foremost, Microsoft has bent their "marketing and PR machine" towards discrediting the GPL - going so far as to call it both a "cancer" and a "virus". At the very same time that they made these claims, Microsoft used GPL utilities in their Services for Unix bundles. At the very least, this raises the question of Microsoft's honesty when it comes to their marketing (a question that's often raised). And there's something to be said that folks like yourself believe this is the first foray for Microsoft in GPL territory (no offense to you personally).

People do care when Linksys/Cisco, Google, Novell, and Red Hat use GPL code to make a profit. They take notice that the rules are followed and whether such attempts are successful - and tend to be supportive of success. Nobody is going to stop Microsoft from making money with GPL software. But when Microsoft enters those same waters, one has to wonder what happened to all the marketing they did that would imply that doing so gives away all one's "IP". Maybe we're not going to see a big press release. But we ARE going to remember previous PR hatchet-work.

You forgot something. You see, I can forgive all that: It's a corporation, operating in it's own self-interest. Yeah, they wouldn't be on my 'nice guys' list, but it leaves them no different than any other big company out there.

What sets Microsoft apart is the fact that competing on the merits of the product is always the last choice for them. They will bribe, influence, undercut, disinform, re-brand, and lock-in. They act always an only as if their customers deserve nothing, and should be handing over as much money as MS wants at any and all times. They will do anything they can to avoid being in a position to be directly evaluated against a competitor of the strength of their products. And they will avoid improving their products unless forced to by an outside force, be it competition or government. And even then they will only improve them as much as they need to in order to deflect the force.

They are not in the software business. They are in the business of dominating software markets. The fact that doing so occasionally requires them to write software is incidental, as far as I can see.

If and when Microsoft turns itself into a company that will compete on the strength of it's products, I will consider starting to trust them, somewhat. Until then, even the smallest bite is a poison pill, eventually requiring you to swallow all their products.

I have to agree with much of what you've said, corporations aren't nessisarily opponents or evil.

I view them as amoral Machiavellian entities. If a car salesman is nice to you, it's only because he makes more sales that way.

It's evil but in a subtle way. It requires people to be other than genuine, to play a role and pretend that it is real. Nowhere in this do you find nobility or virtue or loving-kindness. It's evil not because it necessarily has to do harm, but because it regards many expressions of honesty or of good intentions as hinderances to its goals.

I'm glad that you understand that it's not just Microsoft. It seems that the parent really had an issue with Microsoft, since that's the only company that he cited. I'm not saying that Microsoft isn't evil. In fact, I'm fairly certain that they are. But that doesn't somehow make them worse than other businesses. Any for profit entity is motivated by primarily by greed. Any other motivations can almost always be traced back to greed of some sort.

Sure, we can just dismiss it all with the jaded outlook that everyone is fundamentally driven by selfish motives. But that's not very realistic or helpful. Selfish or not, there are very distinct differences between individual entities. Some can be expected to behave in a reasonably fair manner. Others can be expected to do otherwise and dealing with them will almost always be a disadvantage. It would be absurd to equate both as the same simply because they both wish to profit.

Microsoft didn't release the code by choice. They released it after somebody figured out that they were violating the terms of the GPL, and made what essentially amounted to legal threats.

Now, the fact that Microsoft, with their huge warchest and armies of lawyers, simply caved, rather than trying to weasle out of it and drown the opponents in legal bills, points to Microsoft's opinion of the GPL's legal status.....which is to say, rock solid. If it was as flakey and contradictory as they've claimed in the past, they would have fought it. They didn't, because they know they would have lost badly.

Sure Microsoft released the code by choice. They had plenty of other options availible like completely rewriting the code in question, keeping it close, and taking the hit for the code already distributed. It wouldn't have been very expensive because they would have argued a mistake was made in distributing the code in the first place, it was corrected once realize, and assert their willingness to pay monetary damages for the erroneous use of the code in question.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place, they were.Option 1: fight the GPL to court, probably lose, and give the GPL an even greater legal standing via the test case.Option 2: Release the code as GPL, and nullify any previous (or future) arguments they have made about it being a 'viral' license, bad for capitalism etc etc.

Option 1 would have given them the moral high ground in terms of their philosophy - "We were against the GPL and fought it and lost", but at the cost of hardening the GPL legally.Option 2 is spineless, but I'd be betting they are planning some 'comeback' about how the code evolution of the GPL version is less secure/buggier/slower than some alternative closed version they develop in-house.

I don't believe the person that discovered the issue was the author of the code, so would not have any legal standing to make a legal threat. But even if he was, Microsoft's response was "Oh, you're right... here, let me fix that".

I don't buy it. How can you accidentally be infringing on the GPL? It's not like the patent system where you may or may not be infringing on a patent because there's so bloody many of them covering everything up to sliced bread. Its a license that is _clearly included_ in every file covered by it. It's not as if some source code magically appeared on some programmer's desktop, stripped of all license information. Someone went looking for some code that did X, found a (GPL) version, used it, modified it, released it under a different license.

Of all the companies I trust on my desktop less than Microsoft, Google is number one. Microsoft just wants me to give them money. Google wants to know everything about me.

That, and I bought a computer damnit, not a cloud-computing terminal. I haven't used a terminal since the 90's, and have no desire to return to that world. At least now when I use a terminal, it's into a machine I own.

Of all the companies I trust on my desktop less than Microsoft, Google is number one. Microsoft just wants me to give them money. Google wants to know everything about me.

That's weird; I don't have the same feelings towards Google. Google might try to advertise to me, but the only ads I ever see from them are inconspicuous text ads which I just ignore, and don't take up my time or annoy me like banner ads, pop-ups, etc. do. That's why I don't bother to block them, like I do the others using AdBlock Plus. In fact, sometimes I even click on the Google ads shown to me on Gmail because they're relevant and useful.

Unlike MS, Google doesn't try to force me into using any particular technology or software (or more importantly, OS). I can use all online Google stuff just fine in Firefox on Linux. I can even run Google Earth just fine in Linux. Yeah, SketchUp isn't available on Linux yet, so their record isn't perfect, but then again, Google Earth and SketchUp are free so I really can't complain. MS, on the other hand, is constantly trying to force me to use their OS and their software by pushing for lock-in instead of using open standards. They even try to kill my preferred OS (Linux) by making vague patent threats, and by financing SCO's ridiculous lawsuit via Baystar. Google never tried to do anything like this. Google just wants me to look at some unobtrusive text ads in exchange for using an excellent webmail service and search engine for free. That's a bargain I'm OK with. If I decide I don't like it, I can always use a different search engine and webmail service. So far, Google hasn't given me any reason to believe they're going to do anything beyond this to screw me over, whereas MS has done countless things to screw their users over from Day 1.

That, and I bought a computer damnit, not a cloud-computing terminal. I haven't used a terminal since the 90's, and have no desire to return to that world. At least now when I use a terminal, it's into a machine I own.

I mostly agree with this, as I prefer to run almost all my software locally (except email), and keep my data on my own computer. However, apparently most people don't agree with us, as evidenced by the huge growth in cloud computing and SaaS (software as a service) lately. I don't really understand it myself, but all these vendors probably wouldn't be going down this road if all their customers were firmly against it, so I guess they see things differently. Whatever the reason, this means the parent might be correct: Chrome OS might actually "hit Windows 7 hard". And if it does, then great. I probably won't use it myself, but anything to break up the OS market and restore competition is a good thing.

I'm not worried about Google advertising to me. I worried about when they decide to sell their profile of me.

I honestly don't even care much about that. How's that going to affect me? So what if some big company knows what I look for in google searches? What are they going to do with that information? Offer me targeted advertising? So what?

I guess it just doesn't bother me too much when people advertise things I might actually be interested in to me, instead of spamming me with ads for things I have no

When Google does it the Hardware manufacturers will prepackage Google OS with their machines. So we will get better hardware support for the Linux kernel and so forth. Microsoft will hate it which puts them in a weak negotiation position. This is not about you switching to anything. This is about a cheap investment of Google that kills Microsoft's cash cow. The hardware manufacturers will negotiate lower margins from Microsoft and invest in the new competitor. It

Of course you will be modded +5 Insightful, Interesting, and most importantly +5 Loved by the blind zealots. You post of bunch of "I knew it all along" tripe to support your hate and everyone loves you for it.

When someone takes a position and backs it up with solid reasoning, which is what I have tried to do, I have a hard time describing this as "blind zealotry." If you believe that is zealotry, be glad that you have not experienced the real thing. It's rather ugly.

Also, if you were familiar with my posting history you'd know that I have been saying things like this for quite some time (i.e. years). I am not suggesting that you should be familiar with my posting history, only that you should be aware of when you don't who you're dealing with or what he believes before you make assumptions about his motives.

I really did know this all along, not because I have special insight but because it's rather predictable. If I said that driving drunk increases your chances of having a car accident, is that "'I knew it all along' tripe" or common sense rooted in a simple understanding of cause-and-effect? If I say that drunk driving is a very, very bad idea, am I now an anti-alcohol zealot?

You can't stand the fact that Microsoft is doing the right thing so you will spin your "facts" any way you can to start the FUD wheel moving.

You are making an accusation. Specifically, you are accusing me of deceit. What evidence do you have to back that up, other than "I don't like what he said?" If I accused you of being a paid Microsoft shill or an astroturfer because you are supporting their actions, is that fair? Is it helpful, does it contribute anything to the discussion? No, it doesn't. Note, I am absolutely not accusing you of being a shill of any sort, I am just making a point.

If you think the motives for IBM, Oracle, Sun, or even RedHat for honoring and promoting the GPL are anything other than financial or self-interested you are seriously deluding yourself. This isn't a religion to those companies. It is a tool that they leverage to try and increase their dominance and profits in the technology sector. The fact that all those companies have closed, restrictive, or proprietary solutions should testify to the fact that they are concerned about their position and profits only. Microsoft is doing the same thing.

That one's easy to address. When IBM, Oracle, Sun, and RedHat do this, I don't see members of the community heralding a new era of openness and cooperation. When Microsoft does this, too many people want to believe that. Additionally, IBM, Oracle, Sun, and RedHat do not have monopolies to protect. That means they are more likely (though certainly not guaranteed) to view a degree of cooperation as a good thing that benefits everyone, including themselves.

If anything this should be good news for FOSS zealots everywhere because it shows that Microsoft now considers the GPL a viable route to see product success. It is a fairly huge paradigm shift. Unfortunately there will be people who are more concerned with Microsoft failing than they are with corporate giants moving in the right direction.

I'll believe that Microsoft considers GPL a viable route to successful products when the entirety of Windows, or Office, or Exchange is released as source code under the GPL. That's called "putting your money where your mouth is." As it stands now, Microsoft obviously believes that keeping those three cash cows closed-source is the best business decision they can make. That's their prerogative; the software is theirs to do with as they please. I have no problems with that, but I'm not going to call it a huge paradigm shift either. It could be the beginning of one, but that is nothing more than speculation and remains to be seen.

Additionally, I never expressed a concern with whether or not Microsoft f

It shows that Microsoft actually respects the GPL and believes it to be a license that can be held up in court. Or at least, they don't want to try to test the validity of the GPL.
At any rate, it gives us some insight as to Microsoft's view on Linux, since they've been silent for quite some time about the topic.

After all this noise and bullshit about how many hundreds of MS patents that linux violates [cnn.com], it would be rather ironic if Microsoft was found guilty of incorporating GPL code into their proprietary applications. I almost wish they would have been sued, because maybe then it would get Ballmer to STFU.

...Sued by who? You see, the main problem with open source and people suing over the GPL is because a lot of the things that are GPL'd come from people like you and me. I know for a fact that if my code was taken by MS or any other large company the most I could probably do is write them a stern letter. Now granted, this was Novell in this case who could easily have sued MS, but for a simple programmer the fees and delays of a lawsuit against a huge company without assistance is nearly impossible.

This is why the Free Software Foundation requires copyright assignment for all GNU projects. If GNU code is incorporated into a proprietary project then they have both the standing and the means to sue.

Of course, they also grant the original author a non-exclusive, transferable, license to do whatever they want with the code, and I make any contributions I've made to GNU projects available under the MIT license too, so it's not always clear-cut as to whether something is really copied from a [L]GPL'd sour

...Sued by who? You see, the main problem with open source and people suing over the GPL is because a lot of the things that are GPL'd come from people like you and me. I know for a fact that if my code was taken by MS or any other large company the most I could probably do is write them a stern letter.

You have more options than that. The FSF will in many cases step in to help, with their resources. You may want to consider assigning your copyrights to the FSF so that they have legal standing to intervene directly. They won't always be interested in helping, because their resources are limited, but I guarantee that if a high-profile company like MS was violating the GPL, they'd be all over it.

You don't understand the legal system. If Microsoft wrongfully damaged a programmer by using his copyrighted code without permission and then made a lot of money from the use of that code, then the programmer holds a "chose in action." In other words, the programmer owns something--the right to sue.

That right can be assigned to others (the FSF, for example), who can sue to make them stop and/or to open their code. That right to so can, if it's got great winning potential, also be collateral for a loan.

Not quite...they decided to use GPL'd code contrary to the licence and so were guilty of copyright infringement (or piracy). When pointed out, they decided to obey the licence and release the code as GPL.

What most people are upset about is not that they've released the code as GPL, but the REASON they gave for doing it. To be honest they would have announced (something like):

It has been pointed out to us that we had used GPL code contrary to the GPL licence and decided that instead of pursuing another licence for the code we have decided to fulfil the obligation of the GPL licence by releasing our code under the GPL, which will benefit the community by...

Well, you have a point, but it's not a new one. MS has always feared the GPL [getthefacts.org]and they are merely doing what is in their best interest AKA licensing before they get sued. The folks who created the software could easily still sue for the time from when it was being used -> when it was licensed for damages.

Everyone has had to respect the GPL because it has already been held up in court as far back as germany in 2004 [tinyurl.com] and redhat in 2006. [tinyurl.com]

The GPL is the only thing that gives anybody the right to redistribute the code. So if for whatever reason the GPL was found not to apply, the code is still copyrighted, and that doesn't give them the right to redistribute somebody else's code. So at that point it turns into a very standard copyright infringement lawsuit.

GPL nut: "Your honor, I'd like you to impose a $1 million fine on Microsoft"Judge: "Can you show your reasoning for such a fine?"GPL nut: "Yes, it's for lost sales/opportunity that Microsoft has caused"Judge: "But wait, you give your code away for free. How is it you can claim lost sales?"GPL nut: [foaming at the mouth now] "But Micro$oft is teh evil! They're my sworn mortal enemy and must pay!!11!1!!1!one!"Judge: "Oooookay there. I set the fine for Microsoft at three time

Judge: "Oooookay there. I set the fine for Microsoft at three times lost revenue, or zero dollars"

It's not so easy to quantify lost revenue. That's why statutory damages of up to $30,000 are available in any infringement lawsuit over a copyrighted work that has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or foreign counterparts. In addition, the GPL nut who registers each major version can still recover attorney's fees and court costs.

No, seriously, someone in the militantly proprietary SW camp is going to latch onto this and turn it into some kind of morality tale. "Poor Microsoft, they took the tempting bait of Open Source code and LOST THEIR PRODUCT! Don't let this HAPPEN TO YOU! ph33r teh Open Source!"

Mark my words. Expect a flood of "independent studies" dissecting this story with the intent of making Free Software look like hidden poison.

I think the message that companies need to understand is that GPL != Public Domain. There are a lot of advantages for using GPL'ed code, but companies need to measure the risks/rewards of using GPL'ed software and how it might impact their product goals for the good or the bad because they are required to fulfill the requirements of the license, no matter how few and and inoccuous the license requirements might be. I don't think exploring that distinction is FUD, but an intellegent discourse that helps prot

They could have just stripped the GPL'ed code out completely, its a small part of the total code dump...

Rather, it really is legitimate but for a different sort of evil. Microsoft wants to rule the virtualization world over VMWare and Xen, and one of the things they need to support is Linux well for this market. By getting the necessary support into the kernel, even under the dreaded GPL, this furthers Microsoft's own objectives.

Trust is hard gained and easily lost. MS has shown no sign that they deserve to be trusted. They may be a business partner, but make sure you treat them like you would a business partner in renaissance Italy: Buy from them, exchange money and goods, but never hug them or a dagger will be in your back, never join them for lunch for the chance to be poisoned is far too great.

Before someone goes "business is not friendship". Indeed it's not. But there are various grades. I deal with companies where I don't need a contract because I know them and I know they will honor the contract we agreed on. I believe them if they say the check's in the mail. I grant them a delay in payment if they need to pay a few days later for tax reasons. Likewise, I get the same if necessary.

MS won't make it on that list. When they invite you to dinner, it's not because they want to show you how much they value you as a parner. They usually bring along a dagger or the more modern version, an adhesion contract.

Frankly, I'm pleased at this explanation. I'd very much rather MSFT accept the GPL and OpenSource as a sound business concept than merely out of some arbitrary corporate policy decision. Which could easily be reversed in the continuous "Change" ego-stroking.

Here, it appears that in spite of their best efforts and doubtless strong admonishments that GPL code found its' way into a key product. Good. They've learned they can't be completely leakproof. So will have to comply. Underforce is fine, because it is the most certain and sincere.

As for "trust", what a load of BS! Shareholders generally cannot even trust their Boards nor employees who by law and custom are supposed to look out for their interests. Why should the rest of us expect any better?

Trust is only a precursor to betrayal like Google. Trust is neither required nor desired in business. Much more reliable to trust persuit of self-interest. Business is not family life. There are no bonds of affection. Delusional to pretend there are. And stupid to lean on these bonds too hard anyways.

Trust is neither required nor desired in business. Much more reliable to trust persuit of self-interest. Business is not family life. There are no bonds of affection. Delusional to pretend there are.

That's crap. Trust is essential in smooth business dealings. You can do business with a business partner you can't trust, but it's a hundred times harder. The contracts get horrendously long and complicated, the oversight creates huge overhead and the experience ends up being really unpleasant for all of the people involved. And if you end up in court... that's a huge time and money sink.

So businesses like to establish long-term, amicable relationships with business partners exactly so that they can rely on trust, to loosen up the contracts, smooth out the communication and be able to have confidence that the other party will make good on their promises. Good businessmen understand the limits of trust, but they also understand its advantages. Why do you think business partners eat together, play golf together, etc.? It's precisely to build personal human-to-human relationships to build the trust that's necessary to doing business together effectively. Even better is the experience of doing business together for years, with a joint understanding that both sides will benefit if the relationship continues to be healthy.

This notion is taken to an extreme in the Japanese "Keiretsu", but it's a common feature of nearly all businesses that are successful in the long term. Partnerships matter, and they're built on trust.

If Microsoft had disclosed that they released the code to avoid a violation then the anti-Microsoft crowd would have proclaimed that Microsoft was only releasing the code because they had to, not because they wanted to.
No matter the course of action Microsoft could have taken, they still would have been criticized.

That's because either way they're doing the same thing, Extend, Embrace, Extinguish. So you mean, they're damned if they do, and damned if they... do. People never learn with politicians, but for some reason they can still learn (and have) with computer software companies.

If Microsoft had disclosed reasons why, I doubt it would have been that big a deal. Lots of companies, including big corporations like Microsoft, utilize GPL and other open source licensed code. It's not exactly something amazing, other than the fact that a several years ago, Gates made some rather moronic comments about open source.

But trying to spin a relatively minor licensing screwup as some brand new day of Redmond-Open Source relations was idiotic. It does indeed evaporate some of the good will. The problem is that Microsoft is run by marketing types, and marketers are a fundamentally depraved and immoral lot. The engineers, I'm sure, would just have said "Hey, we used some GPL code. Now that we know we violated the license, we're making it right by releasing all the code we through into it." But marketers, a foul and vile subspecies, have this blasphemous need to spin things, and in the process, just as often show just how lacking in any kind of ethics this particular disgusting occupation is.

So... when was there a cover-up? Seems to me like it simply wasn't reported because no one considered it relevant to report, given that it was in the press release.

It's not something you brag about, just a reality. They wrote some linux drivers, and that's a huge waste of time and resources to maintain in a closed source fashion unless you have a really good reason (like Nvidia, who have to re-engineer much of X to allow modern graphics technology in Linux).

It's rare that Microsoft should have to touch GPL code for any reason, but now that they have to for Hyper-V, they're adhering to the GPL. At one point does this story become sinister or scary?

I had question about what would drive Microsoft to doing that. After all, they did borrow quite liberally from BSD code for various things including the TCP/IP stack. But the stuff that was contributed back wasn't "huge" by any measure that I could tell. Now if they open sourced MS Office or Windows XP, THAT would have gotten my attention.

But I'll offer this. Let's give Microsoft credit for owning up to and respecting the terms of the GPL even if they weren't completely honest about their motives. They did the right thing which is also somewhat unusual for Microsoft. It may have been a baby step instead of a leap in the right directions, but it was still a move in the right direction.

If they really did release the code to avoid litigation, then Microsoft is not contesting the validity of the GPL. Wasn't one of their previous tactics to attempt to portray the GPL as an invalid license? I suspect this argument will be harder to support when they release code in order to stay in compliance with its terms.

Trust must be earned. IBM, the Microsoft of an earlier era, has abandoned many of the anticompetitive and fraudulent actions of its past, and thereby helped to earn trust and respect. Microsoft could do the same, at very little cost or risk to itself, in various ways. For instance, it could agree not to sue reimplementers of.NET (Mono, etc.) and SMBFS/CIFS (Samba, etc.), or list the alleged "patent problems" with Linux that it has claimed in the past. But half-hearted measures such as releasing software under the GPL when it legally was required to do so, or the very limited promises it has made surrounding.NET, don't quite cut it for me.

My problem with Microsoft isn't their business practices (it would be if I were their partner of competetitor), it's their software design and overall philosophy: "Do it the Microsoft way or no way. We have a monopoly so the customer doesn't matter."

From their changing each version of almost any product as to cause one to need a complete retraining, to their lack of quality control, to their onorous "activation" and the need to type in a long string of alphanumerc characters just to install an OS, to Active-X and non-standards compliance... the list goes on. I avoid Microsoft whenever I can because I, personally, don't like their products (Excel is an exception; but maybe it's only good because the others are so gawdoffal bad).

If they'd change the attitude they have towards their customers, I might become one again. If you like their products, give them your money and enjoy. I'll continue to run Linux and curse the necessity of using MS at work. I'm glad I have no need of a spreadsheet at home, maybe one of these days I'll fire up the OO spreadsheet just to see how it compares.

My problem with Microsoft isn't their business practices (it would be if I were their partner of competetitor), it's their software design and overall philosophy: "Do it the Microsoft way or no way. We have a monopoly so the customer doesn't matter."

Well, the problem with that is MS has never considered you or other end users as their customers when it comes to Windows. OEMs are their customers: Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. While they sell Windows at retail, that's a small number compared to OEMs. In order t

No real surprise here. Microsoft is in the business of making money, so if everyone remembers this in dealing with them or any other profit driven company, then we'll be well prepared for this behavior. Open Source is seen by MS and others as a threat to their profits, so many avoid it. But in the tech world, that is getting increasingly harder, and more foolish to do. So avoiding a profit sapping lawsuit is probably a good move. Yeah they could recode, but in this case it was probably easier (and cheaper) to just comply with the GPL.

Generally speaking, FOX is the one who likes to take stories and spin them in the worst possible light to forward their own agenda. I can see now that SLASHDOT does the same thing. How on earth do you equate Microsoft following the rules of the GPL as something bad? How on earth did we get here? Seriously -- there's now going to be a lack of trust?! Are you kidding me? Because they provided a prettified PR statement to go with it? This says *nothing* about their stance on linux -- it says something about their integrity as a company that obeys software licenses. We now have definitive proof that Microsoft at least works within and respects the GPL, but somehow today is a day of mistrust?

Simply amazing. I can only imagine what the folks at MS are thinking right now who see this article. I bet their not thinking "gee, that went well -- let's do it again!"

This like shooting the publishers clearing house folks on your door step when they bring you the big check -- "Thanks, but get the heck off mah properta!"

Exactly. By doing this Microsoft have added weight to their argument that businesses shouldn't use GPL because it's viral nature is dangerous. Of course it's a poor argument, but perfectly good for them to spin to suit their agenda.

Copyright isn't viral. If you integrate your code and someone else's code (to which you do not have a license), there's nothing viral about that. You simply violated copyright and neither party has rights to the combined code.

The GPL is viral, but that's ok. It's meant to be. The only problem is that the word "viral" has a negative connotation. That doesn't change the fact that the description is perfectly apt.

The GPL is as "viral" as any other copyrighted work. After all, the author does not lose his copyright just because he authorized someone to access his work. In fact, if I happen to rip a a copy of Microsoft's Windows XP from an original and fully licensed install CD that a buddy of mine bought then Microsoft keeps his copyright not only on my buddy's CD install but also on the copy I ripped myself.The same thing applies to any GPL software. For example, if my buddy downloaded some GPL package from the proj

1) If you wish to distribute your code, you must distribute it under the GPL.

That's not actually accurate and usually the misconception about the GPL being 'viral'. The correct formulation would be:

1) If you want to distribute the GPL code, you must distribute it under the GPL.

You're entirely free to distribute your own code however you want, the fact that you may not distribute the GPL code with it, and the possibility that your own code may not be useful without the GPL code doesn't make the GPL code more

Or, more accurately, that you shouldn't use anyone else's code in your products unless you have carefully read the license and are happy to agree to all of the terms. If it's a complicated license, like the GPL or most proprietary software licenses, then you should probably run it past your company's legal department.

Microsoft have added weight to their argument that businesses shouldn't use GPL because it's viral nature

Actually it seems they have added weight to their argument that businesses should adhere to the licensing terms for the software they use. Microsoft puts massive resources into fighting violations of their licensing agreements [microsoft.com] with end users of their products and here they are caught violating the licensing terms for software they have licensed.

So in the end Microsoft should write their own code and refrain from stealing open source code if they have no intention of adhering to the licensing terms that made the open source code available. The GPL is not viral, otherwise they would be releasing ALL of their code under the GPL.

So if there wasn't a GPL, and Microsoft stole this code (as they did), and Novell (having no GPL to turn to for an easier solution) sued, and as part of the settlement Microsoft was forced to release the related code, would that make copyright / the court system / Novell viral?

How are all proprietary licenses viral? If I use Visual Studio(or the command line compilers and linkers in.NET), Borland, whatever and compile statically against every possible Windows and.NET library, does my code/application become the property of MS to sell and distribute according to the terms of Visual Studio?

If you do that, it's quite possible you'll end up violating a license or two, yes.

Take a good look at the.ocx and.net libraries you have on your system. It's almost certain that at least a couple of those come from some program that you installed, and that can be only redistributed by the licensee, or require paying royalties.

So yeah, if you link against those, and the company that makes them finds out, you may end up in a lot of legal trouble.

No, you're the one confusing something. I'm using SL just for the sake of example, because it's something I'm personally familiar with, including licensing-wise.

My point is that yes, linking with random files you find in Windows can get you in trouble, and it's by no means exclusive to the GPL. Proprietary libraries have plenty licensing terms that are much nastier than the GPL, which require for instance to pay royalties. You can't just go and link to that without further consideration.

How are all proprietary licenses viral? If I use Visual Studio(or the command line compilers and linkers in.NET), Borland, whatever and compile statically against every possible Windows and.NET library, does my code/application become the property of MS to sell and distribute according to the terms of Visual Studio?

No, and if you use GCC and related tools and link statically against every possible GPL license, your code does not become the property of the FSF.

I have a hard time getting angry at Microsoft over this (plenty more things they do annoy / anger me though). They were in violation of the GPL, when they realised it they had a few options. Among those options were come into compliance, contact the copyright owner and try to make a deal or try to cover it up. Of those three options they chose the more ethical in my opinion. They almost certainly chose that option because it also made the most business sense but that is what they always do. It is what every

They were in violation of the GPL, when they realised it they had a few options. Among those options were come into compliance, contact the copyright owner and try to make a deal or try to cover it up. Of those three options they chose the more ethical in my opinion.

Option 4 would have been to remove the GPL code from their product and write their own. That would have been an ethical choice too.

Just pointing that out, since it's always an option and the main reason the GPL isn't "viral". A virus is someth

Yeah, no shit they can't win, because they already lost when they violated the GPL. The win/lose ship has already sailed. They were already given more consideration and benefit of the doubt than they deserve when, as usual, the copyright holder of the GPL code didn't try to extort or sue MS for damages, but rather simply tried to resolve the non-compliance issue going forward.

That MS took one of the valid, legal, and ethical approaches to resolving the issue is not to their credit, unl

Normally, DHCP servers and BOOTP relay agents attempt to deliver
DHCPOFFER, DHCPACK and DHCPNAK messages directly to the client using
uicast delivery. The IP destination address (in the IP header) is
set to the DHCP 'yiaddr' address and the link-layer destination
address is set to the DHCP 'chaddr' address. Unfortunately, some
client implementations are unable to receive such unicast IP
datagrams until the implementation has been configured with a valid
IP address (leading to a deadlock in which the client's IP address
cannot be delivered until the client has been configured with an IP
address).

A client that cannot receive unicast IP datagrams until its protocol
software has been configured with an IP address SHOULD set the
BROADCAST bit in the 'flags' field to 1 in any DHCPDISCOVER or
DHCPREQUEST messages that client sends. The BROADCAST bit will
provide a hint to the DHCP server and BOOTP relay agent to broadcast
any messages to the client on the client's subnet. A client that can
receive unicast IP datagrams before its protocol software has been
configured SHOULD clear the BROADCAST bit to 0.

That's from RFC 2131, published March 1997. Guess what? Vista apparently has a deficient IP stack which "cannot receive unicast IP datagrams until its protocol software has been configured with an IP address.". At least it sets the BROADCAST bit. It gets even stupider, because Vista actually HAS a modern IP stack, and CAN receive unicast without having an IP address. You just need to set a registry entry.

Needless to say, not every router vendor supported the BROADCAST bit in their DHCP servers. Well now they do.

"Granted, they've been very creative with things like the MsPL but people see through those ruses pretty quickly."
Yes, total ruse. Except that the MSPL is an OSI-approved open source license. There's plenty to bash MS on, the MSPL isn't one of those things.

How exactly are you not "free to ignore Microsoft if you want to"? I haven't bought a Microsoft product in about 3 years now, and haven't once felt like I was missing out on something. I have a perfectly capable computer system, digital camera, video camera, and personal media player at home with absolutely no Microsoft software on it and no Microsoft hardware in it. What exactly are you unable to ignore about them?

At that point the Linux people are free to ignore Microsoft, and roll their own Digital cameras, MP3 players, etc. which are compatible with Linux and which do not infringe on Microsoft's (or anybody else's) patents.

"I want / need to use the FAT filesystem," is not sufficient reason in the eyes of current law to allow you to violate patents. I agree that the patent system needs to be reformed, but as soon as you say, "IF the patent system worked the way I wanted it to," you have invalidated your legal a

This isn't about "Windows interoperability". My original post on the mattershould have made it plain to anyone. Now if you use your computer like aglorified vt-220 terminal that's your business. Many of are a bit moreambitious in our computer use. Some of us would prefer not to be forciblyturned into the technological equivalent of the Amish.

Patent abuse makes this a very real possibility.

On the one hand, a proper industry standard might help. Then again it mightbe subject to the same patent stupidity. Plus

As a contributor to many GPL projects I would welcome any open source patches by Microsoft. They're a big company that could contribute a lot to Linux or its applications. Unfortunately there are many linux users who contribute nothing but hate which is why the public image of open source and free software has been ruined.

It doesn't matter if you're white, black, rich, poor or even Microsoft. All that matters is the code and the fact that Microsoft is using the GNU GPL license. Since they have contributed a

MS can never build bridges with many of the software red loons who frequent this site.

Once bitten twice shy.

And the irony, you consider a multi sourced market where the actual producers of the licensed source code retain their copyrigths versus handing it over to a single corporation to be communist, "red", and a single sourced monopoly controlled market to be free market capitalism. And copyright holders protecting their licensed source code are insane, "loons", while a fat ageing corporate officer jumping around on a stage in front of subordinates to the point of causing bodily harm and proceeding to limp around the stage is sanity.

they have never built any bridge they did not line with explosives and hold the button firmly in their own hands. So dah, you're just stating the facts since in 20 something years, they've given nothing anyone but the blind could trust. Thanks for the chuckle though, now go back to your Microsoft platform and close your eyes to reality... crap, an AC.

so why is 99% of the press so ignorant of this fact and merrily continues regurgitating the marketing drivel Microsoft sends them day after day? They have been the mouth piece of their deceptions for 20 years. I also think that the business methods Microsoft uses for profit are what are so distasteful and are what rile up many in this community. They lie, cheat, steal, stab in the back, etc, etc, etc. Yes it is all in the name of making profits for them but when they keep doing that crap on my doorstep, you bet I'm going to tell them to get the f''ck off my property and smack them from then on at any chance I get. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, there is something wrong doing it by telling the world their _horse_ is better and faster than anyone else's and then shotting everyones horse when they step up to challenge that declaration.

They play dirty and have so for decades. WTF do you really expect of anyone but the completely naive?

No matter how you slice it, it's good for the GPL & open source. Either Microsoft has conceded that the GPL is legally enforceable and thus must be taken seriously, OR they have decided that they want to play ball with the open source kids, and are using this as the first step in a new direction towards working with open source developers & projects.

Well, since they didn't release the source until they were contacted and told they were violating the GPL, I'm guessing it's the former! And of course